Canon EOS 80D to EOS 6D Mark II: in the light of the review, should I upgrade?

Is it worth upgrading my EOS 80D to the EOS 6D Mark II?

We already had a simple look at how good an upgrade the EOS 6D II makes for 80D owners, based on our early impressions of the camera. Now we've had a chance to spend more time with it (and to go back and shoot with the 80D again), we thought we'd look at the differences and benefits in more detail.

We're going to try not to make too many assumptions about what you shoot with your 80D and what you value in a camera, beyond assuming that you kinda like your current camera, that you enjoy using a camera that works broadly as well in live view mode as it does through the viewfinder and that you'd like something fairly similar but, you know, better. Will the 6D II do that for you?

Comments

Sorry Canon. 6D2 no go. My 80D with Sigma 18 to 35mm 1.8. And I am good to go. (Disclaimer I own a full frame 1D series)Also I shot some girls Softball at night with 70 to 200mm L 2.8 @ ISO 14000 and was surprise at the good IQ.

I went 70D-6Dii. Kept 70D. I know this upgrade is more justifiable as there was DR/sensor improvement in the 80D/70D. The majority of why I upgraded had little to do with DR for me though there is big improvement there. 1st, I wanted ff for shallower dof with the 35mm perspective of the given lens. Of course the 6dii met 100% expectation there. 2nd, I wanted good low light noise performance. I worried about this, but the camera exceeded expectations. I have used it up to 10,000 iso, which is more extreme than normal, though I was surprised by how good they look. Normal threshhold, I wouldnt go over 1600 with 70d, and the 6dii to is similar all the way to 6400. The raw images clean up in post better too. Lastly the transition with glass and other gear was relatively easy. In short, because of online hype, I stalled on upgrading and was almost expecting to return the camera. NO WAY would I return it. Its a night and day improvement though I keep the 70d for birds and macro.

Just sold my 80D and bought the 6DM2. That’s despite all the negative reviews and issues with the 6D2. Why? Five factors that were important to me.1. The net price difference of $400 from what I paid for the 6D2 ($1000) vs the $600 I netted from selling my 2 year old 80D seemed reasonable.2. I liked having GPS since the 6D2 will be my travel camera.3. I wanted the better low light capability of the 6D2.4. It seems the 6D2 has a bit better weather sealing than the 80D and this is my travel camera.5. I already owned 3 “L” zoom lenses with combined a 16-300mm focal length. With the 80D this was an effective 26-480mm range. I’d rather have the extra wide angle between 16 and 26mm with the FF 6D2 than the 300mm to 480mm telephoto range I’m giving up.

I kept my 80D (and 60D) as backups after I purchased a refurbished 6D2 from Canon. I then purchased the EF 24-105 L f/4 II and the EF 16-35 L f/4 as I had only the equivalent focal lengths in EF-s for my APS-C bodies (15-85 and 10-22). I splurged on an EF 200-400 with integral 1.4x L f/4 used from Band H.

The thing is... would you upgrade from 80D to 6D - Yes, is 6D2 better then 6D - Yes.At the end of the day FF is FF and if you speak to anyone who actually has a 6D and bought 6D2 they will tell you that its a worthy upgrade.

The other thing is the price, for 2000 £ or $ it is not worth it. As you are upgrading to FF most of your lenses will be incompatible and you will have to buy new ones anyway and that is where you have the chance to look around, both the Nikon D750 and the Sony A7II retail at £900-1000 and comparing 6D2 at twice the price makes no sense.

What you should be thinking about is the comparison of 6D2 at a price of £1200-1300 which it will be in a month or two.

The fact that the 80D has a headphone jack and cost a good chunk less than the 6DII is enough to make it the winner. You say you want a full frame Canon cheaper than the 5D IV? Buy a 5D III, unless you must have the video autofocus ability of the 6DII.

This article would appear to have limited usefulness for various reasons, too many to detail. Here are two of them:- 'Should 80D users upgrade?" Why on earth would an 80D user, after spending $1,000 or so +- recently, would think to upgrade? (a 2nd body might make more sense for some people, but upgrade?)- Most of the whining seems to be about the DR @ ISO 100. Why would one spend $2,000 (esp. after getting an 80D) in order to work @ ISO 100??I'm a 40D owner, arguably one of the best cameras Canon has ever produced. Just ask anyone (or see comments in this thread) who owns it. Now, as a cosmic coincidence would have it ;-), the pixel sizes of the 40D and the 6DMII are essentially the same; the spatial resolution would be the same but with the plus of cropping only if needed, say. With 10 yrs of technology between them, clearly I'll be able to work @ much higher ISO values (think astronomy or birding). Now, THIS would be the kind of upgrade the article should have considered.

I own a Canon 40D, 5D III and a Canon 80D. All three are truly great cameras. Though the 40D is a little dated right now, I agree with you that it is a real winner of a camera. I rely on the 5D III for stills and the 80D for my videos, the 40D still produces great images and is still a wonderful camera to use.

You pretty much answered a basic question I have.I reached here while looking what to upgrade to from my aging 30D, and I was exactly between these two cameras. I have read people whining about the 6DmkII's dynamic range at low ISOs and I was rather concerned, since I'm doing 95% landscapes and low-light photography.

Money-wise I'm more comfortable with the 80D (since I'm not making money from photography as it is), but as a long-term investment, I think the 6DmkII will be better, so I'm considering the jump. For me this is a serious hobby -almost profession at some point- that I'm trying to go back into.

I'm a pro who has always used crop sensor cameras because my work does not require shallow DOFs and I need the extra reach. So when the 6D2 was announced I scoured the used market for a 6D1 and got one for $850 -- equivalent to $795 before NJ tax. That worked out very well for me, particularly for the few times a year I'll need a FF body.

I own the EOS 80D and love it. I upgraded from the EOS 70D so I have an assortment of EF-S lenses and some standard lenses. Rather than upgrade to the EOS 6D MII I bought an EOS 5D MIII so now I feel I have the best of both options.

My Canon history includes A2, 20D, 30D, 60D, and 80D, and my lenses include 10-22, 17-55, 18-135USM, 50 1.8 STM, 60 Macro, 85 1.8, 70-200L IS, and just recently a Sigma 100-400, so a mixture of both APS-C and FF. I love the 80D, after being disappointed with the 60D, but would like a FF. Thought hard about the Sony A7R II, but decided to wait for the next generation. Would have loved a 6D II with great dynamic range, but I don't want to give that up. I can live with everything else about the 6DII but that. No thanks for now.

I am not a pro but I kind of love my 40D which I got like new for £150 a year ago. What a pleasurable piece of engineering is that one to use! What a machine. Great value and battery life. Not half as bad OVF. Good buffer depth and continuous shooting speed. Not a bad AF. Low shutter lag. Simple to use. Nice to grip. Love it for pure feel of using that thing. Nice IQ too.

I took a photo when the 40D was the best crop sensor available, and years later a client later used it for a 40 foot billboard outside the Callahan Tunnel in Boston. I was impressed how well a 10 MP photo held up at that size.

I just got 24-105mm F4 L MK1 for £220 yesterday, in good condition but with few slight scratches on the front element hence the price. My first L glass and I love the quality feel of that lens. It also felt so easy to shoot tennis with continuous AF using AF-ON button to track the action through OVF on selected focus point. The USM is quick and seems accurate as well and in combination with imperceivable shutter lag creates very nimble feeling. So that's it. Nice weather-sealed semi-pro combo with 4k (10Mpx) stills output for £370.

No absolutely NOT. Canon EOS 80D picture clarity is really good and I'm satisfied with that. Coming to price, There is a LOT of difference between these 2. And also, Every Time a new model comes into market. Is this possible to run with technology every time?

Instead of beating around the Bush, why don't you forthright tell us whether it is worth upgrading or not?On one hand, you are saying that it has full frame sensor.On the other hand, you are saying that that sensor's dynamic range is low.What is the point of spending more money on a bigger sensor with a bigger more expensive lens if it's dynamic range is low?You are even confusing us more.

For $2600... people should just try the Sony A7Rmk2 instead for $2700 and buy the adapter to use Canon lenses on it. The Sony is light years ahead of the 6Dmk2.Just look at the focusing points coverage between the two, the Canon is laughable, dynamic range... everything. But that's just my opinion, I respect that people are loyal to Canon. And right now there's the trade up program from Sony, really think about it.

@alpard78. "...the Canon is laughable, dynamic range... everything. But that's just my opinion, I respect that people are loyal to Canon. "

As an owner of a Nikon D810 and the Sony A6300 (and love them both), I have to say that I take offense to your type of post. You say you have respect for people that are loyal to Canon but you trashed the 6DII calling it laughable in feature set when compared to Sony. That's a troll attempt, whether you care to admit it or not. Sony gets attacked often, but it's generally the Sony owners who directly attack Canon and indirectly insult it's owners. Why can't you just love what you have (like I do) and not make trolling attempts at products you don't care for? Lordy....Forums!!!

I respectfully disagree. And the internet agrees mostly with my opinion, Canon took many years to deliver a camera that has barely any improvements over the previous version. This is 2017, not 1990, they can't get away with giving their customer base a camera upgrade every 4 years with tiny incremental improvements.I have been a Sony user since 2006, I have seen Canon and Nikon trash over and over Sony cameras saying they're toys. I said "...the Canon is laughable..." and not only compared to Sony, also to other cameras recently. I never said anything bad about the owners. I hope Canon is paying attention, as I believe that bad comments and reviews can trigger a company to improve... or die.

As a retired 'pro' ( I made some money with photography) reading through these forums I am always amazed at how many cameras people have or have owned (or claim to have ..). Call me old fashioned but my cameras last for years and years.

But many seem to feel this urge to upgrade every time a new model is introduced, probably 'enticed' by all the marketing BS that promises better images or 'essential' features that will make you a 'top dog' in photography. Well, it most likely won't.

Judging from the images that are produced over the years there really hasn't changed that much. Yes, by pixel peeping I can see small differences between my 'oldest' digital camera and my 'current' six year old camera. But in print or downsized for viewing on UHD TV it's hard to tell. So I stick to my old stuff ....

"Judging from the images that are produced over the years there really hasn't changed that much. Yes, by pixel peeping I can see small differences ...."

I agree 100%. I've owned, rented and borrowed many digital cams over the years, from full-frame to teenie weenie. So what do I shoot with today? 98% of the time it's a Leica Digilux 2 accompanied by a Ricoh GR II. With either camera I get images that rival just about anything out there, with the Digilux 2 providing a quality that I've not seen with any other camera. The Ricoh is a little wonder, printing clean and clear and sharp to 17 X 22 with little difficulty. I, too, got all caught up in the latest-is-the-greatest syndrome. But with some 180,000+ images to scroll through and compare cameras with, I'm not at all hesitant to say that the differences among them are slight to inconsequential. DXOmark's measurements would have you believe otherwise. Take it all with a grain of salt. Yes, sports/action shooting is another story.

I'd agree expect that going from APS-C to FF is a large leap. If one is even contemplating it, future lens purchase decisions are greatly affected. It may mean a completely different FOV or being incompatible altogether.

sensors have only seriously served photography for about 20 years or so

while they are very good now and have been for about a decade lets remember that films early incarnations needed a century or more to start getting very sensitive to light and provide a mature evolved technology

my point is in this....our very early evolution of sensors ... upgrading frequently isnt acquisition syndrome..

. its getting a faster wider range " digital film" for the cost of a camera body the next decade or 2 will offer something magical and transformative as the move to digital itself...

. organic sensors which will come soon with increase sensitivity a lot the graphene based sensors that will follow will increase sensitivity maybe 1000 times with unheard af dynamic range ..and will transform the very look of the image with eye like dynamic range so buying bodies in a pretty sure bet for the next decade or 2

Why always upgrade to the newest? you make the picture, not the camera :-) i'm always was a Canon Fan, but now i use a Lumix Fz-1000 and I love this thing. I know not a good comparison with a 6Dmk2, but this one fulfill al my needs, and saves me a lot of back pain. 4K is also great, F2.8-F4.0 is also nice at 400mm, ok not the DOF of a full frame, but I can live with that. I was always a quick buyer of new camera's, but not anymore....new camera's, maybe quicker, beter dynamic range.....it's just a game. But Canon is losing a lot of customers to Sony and Panasonic at this moment, and I understand why.....Canon is behind with everything. The IQ of the Lumix fz1000 is beter than my canon 650D, 50D.....I never own a fulframe, still a dream, but I have sold my L-lenses a while ago, I don't start again with al that expensive glass. It's just a decision you have to make.....Canon is a good brand and quality is okay, but there behind the rest.....in my opinion.

I did the same thing - and went to an FZ1000. It tested as having 20-25% better resolution on my resolution chart than my 70D and any of my three Canon lenses, including the macro lens. I do a lot of travel and landscape photography, and I prefer more Depth of Field, not less. After experience with the 1" sensor on the FZ1000, I tried a Sony RX100. Hated it! Next tried a Canon G7X II - love it.

On the other hand, I don't think Canon is that far behind, if at all. Their dual pixel sensor is a definite advancement. Nikon's D7200 was a better camera; but it used a Toshiba sensor as did the D7100.

I bought one month ago also the LX10/LX15 for the F1.4 lens, nice quality and compact but not easy to hold (slippery), i had an old Praktica SLR, i used the rubber grip (not very modern look but it works) for the Lumix :-) now it slips not so easy in my hand. Also I ordered the Lensmate so i can attach a UV or ND filter plus it's a nice protection for the lens. One downside, i mis the EVF as on the FZ1000 :-( . Sorry I have no experience with the Canon GX7 II, maybe I have to take a look :-) . The FZ1000 wil stay my main camera for a while (i use the zoom a lot). Upgrading to the FZ2500, i'm still not sure. But thanks for your reply, always nice to hear what other people thinks.

After having "retired" it for a few years ("upgraded" to Sony A7r) I would now say exactly the same - I forgot to sell it on ebay and still use it. My Panasonic GH2 is still awesome too! Looking back at pics from 5D mk1 there is very little wrong with that camera if you manage to get an in-focus and properly exposed image.

I bought the A7RM2 last year in May and ever since I have not touched my 5DM2 again. Sold it a few months ago after the last check and clean at Canon.

Sometimes I revisit the same place for photographing things again knowing the sweet spots. I was sorting some images in my LR library and found some to be extremely awkward in quality - comparable huge amount of noise and not really sharp - just to find out that these images had been made with my 5DM2 instead of the new A7RM2.Once you get used to the quality level of the A7RM2 you'll never want to grab any Canon. My spouse owns the 5DsR - I am quite comfortable to say that the A7RM2 with the 12-24 G easily beats the 5DsR with the 11-24. Noise, image quality at higher ISOs - the Sony wins hands down every possible comparison.

I say that with no bad feelings. The 5DM2 was a fabulous camera in 2008 till 2010 and in case Canon would have done the 5DsR in 2011 we'd be still friends ;-)

I had a similar situation - upgrading my 60D. I already owned one L lens and a couple of other EF. I rented both the 80D and 6D (mark 1). The IQ difference was obvious - I got a 6D and love it. I won't be upgrading to the 6D mk2 unless there is a $500+ drop in the price a couple of years from now.

I shot Oly on film, got a Canon when I went digital as they had the best sensor around back then. Then I got a 5D (which I loved), then a 5D II, moaned directly to Canon about the focus arrangement. I clearly wasn't alone, so when they launched the 5D III got one straight away again. So I got the handling I wanted, but always thought the dynamic range was lacking compared to the competition .

They fixed that to a point with the MKIV, but they've lost me now. Keeping my MKIII, but think of binning it and the £5k of lenses. The the lack of decent support for 4K on the MKIV doesn't help either; my phone does that, it's now table stakes.

I kinda hope the 6D II falls on its backside TBH. Canon are sitting on their brand, and failing their customers.

Canon are applying old-world thinking to a world that's transforming around them.

Actually you should have mentioned:- 6DMII is far more expensive and when upgrading you need a lot of money also for new lenses (I have 3 EF-S)- 6DMII has no built in flash, which comes in far more handy when you need a fill in flash for a quick shot than a GPS for organisation and reducing battery life (and untill now I have always known where I have taken my pictures)- The real question should be: 6DMII or 5DMIII

6DMII or 6D.? The original 6D is looking like a steal. Very similar IQ, smaller file sizes (yes, I've concluded the extra 6 MP from the 6DMII is useless). Autofocus for pictures is quite good on the 6D if you know how to use it. If you must have video then the 6DMII would be the clear choice, but if not, save the money and get a 6D.

As someone who has a 6D (with lens investments already), I am still deciding on my upgrade path. There are nice things of the 6D Mark II that would be nice to have. In the end though, I'm not sure if I could really justify it yet since the image quality *appears* to be so close to each other.

I'm in the same boat with a 6D and L-lenses. I don't do any video; the 6D has worked well for me for landscapes, wildlife, and kids sports and theater. Focusing is actually pretty easy too once I figured to just use the center point in AI servo mode, and when necessary focus then re-compose. I don't see any huge benefits to the 6D2. From looking at dpreviews image comparison tool, the extra megapixels have very little impact and DR on the 6D is better. I just saved $2K.

Not really. The D750 has been littered with recalls since its launch, is 3 years old and doesn't have a vari-angle touch screen. The only upgrade is from APS-C to FF which does yield better IQ, but if you're going to go and switch systems, you're better off going to the 5D IV if you want the second best that Canon delivers. The D750 and Canon 5D IV are very close in IQ where it matters, and switching brands is a costly venture (trust me, I know).

Actually, the Nikon D750 is the real upgrade for video. I've been a Canon user since 2003, but I purchased a Nikon D750 to use with the Nikon 200-400 VR lens I got last year (1/4 the price of the Canon version). What I discovered, quite by accident, is that the video quality on the D750 absolutely blows away anything from Canon DSLR's, including any of the 5D bodies. I'm astonished that Canon continues to peddle their soft mushy DLSR video, while Panasonic, Sony, and even Nikon produce vastly superior video quality. I still love my Canon equipment (1Dx and 5D-MkIII), but definitely not for video. Sorry if any Canon users are offended by this.

I also own a D750 and 5DMkIII. There is no comparison for video quality. The D750 trounces the 5DMkIII, and that's not just my opinion. Having said that, The only time I use a DSLR for video is when it's the only camera I've got on me, or if I need extreme shallow depth of field. Otherwise I stick to Panasonic which offers superb 4k in a very small and affordable package.

Seems to me that the difference in price ($900) should be easily justified by image quality and feature improvements as well as overall superior performance. But it doesn't look like it is. That $900 will give you a lot of great lenses to choose from for your shiny new 80D. And I can't help but wonder why the article didn't have much to say about the price difference ... surely an important consideration when choosing between these two cams.

The article is framed in the context of upgrading from an 80D to a 6DII , not choosing which one to buy when you don't own either.

So the question it was trying to answer was do I stick with my 80D or should I upgrade? Since upgrading your camera from aps-c to FF always costs a considerable chunk of money, I took the cost a given and so this was a purely technical comparison to evaluate if it was worth replacing an 80D with a 6DII on features/image quality.

For what its worth based on the article if I owned an 80D the answer would be "no" regardless of how much the 6DII costs.

"The article is framed in the context of upgrading from an 80D to a 6DII , not choosing which one to buy when you don't own either."

Duly noted. But I would imagine that any number of photographers and enthusiasts who DON'T own an 80D (or anything as recent) will also read the article as as possible reference material and a resource for making a choice. I mean, the article DOES compare the two cameras and DOES come to conclusions about "which one."

I’m one of those people.I own a 30D and I was looking between these two. Now I’m just as confused, and I’ve added the A7Rii in the mix too :) but that probably stretches my budget quite a bit (with lenses and all)So I think I’ll rent / borrow them both and see what happens. One thing I like about ff though is that your lenses become “wider” than aps-c, and I do love wide-angle lenses with wide apertures.

I am not surprised at all when I heard they said a lot of people shoot JPEG, at least most of the "none serious photographer" friend I know shoot JPEG, I mean those won't hike 4 miles and wait in cold for the perfect sunrise moment and go up to Yosemite during a snow storm but just use their camera during family vacation kind of friends. and those more serious photographer I know are mostly shooting with a higher end FF models, so I am not surprised at all a lot of users for this entry level model shoot JPEG.

After buying a Sony RX100 II for a daily-carry camera, I've been shooting RAW+JPG. The number of times I've needed to go into the RAW files for corrections is very, very low. The perfectionist in me makes it difficult to stop shooting RAW completely but I'm leaning more and more that way every day. That said, Sony != Canon (plus sensor sizes and intended output medium differences) and real testing would be needed but I could see getting away with just JPG on a properly dialed in camera may be in my future.

If you haven't tried jpegs lately you're in for a nice surprise...but only If you take the time to match the settings to your vision We have much better in camera processors than we had in 2004 (at least I think that's the reason) so I've been really impressed both with the fine tuning ability and with the results.

@MrBrightSide, that's good to hear, and I have had the luxury to shoot and spend the time to process RAW, but it's been a while since I've shot JPEGs.

@Kona Mike, I think you need to get a grip. I wasn't ripping people who shoot JPEGs, just surprised that most people do now that RAW processing has gotten so much easier. I agree that some people take the technical side way too seriously, though.

They don't care about file format, compression settings, bit depth, etc. They don't know what raw is. They could care less about post processing, unless it is automatically putting puppy dog ears and noses on people in their pictures.

There are a lot of issues like that. DPR used to test cameras with the best available lens for that make. Olympus certainly got a boost from that with their 50mm macro lens. Now the actual lens used for testing is no longer noted. That makes all of the camera tests a little suspect in my book. Which lens was used to test Pentax K1 moving autofocus that DPR complained about. Who knows? I put the Pentax K5 ii review link up for a reason. DPR used to produce relatively dispassionate, sensible reviews of cameras and lenses. They made their reputation on that work. They've outsourced lens reviews and their camera reviews have become less useful as time goes on. Unless you're a Nikon fan boy, in which case its always happy days.

I don't believe that DPReview's staff review gear with the intent on being deceptive. But it just gets frustrating when one camera gets 18 pages with extensive testing and the next camera gets 7 pages with brief notes and the feeling of being rushed and hurried.

My only real complaint is that cameras that are tested need certain criteria for sample images. For example, when the Nikon D850 is released, I don't want to see street level snapshots with it. I want to see photos taken that stress the camera's sensor. High Contrast scenes, night scenes, long exposures, high ISOs, portraits, sunsets and landscapes, etc... The 6DII's sample images were all snapshots that anyone could take with a cell phone.

Test these cameras. Don't just say the 6D2's sensor sucks because of one weakness. Test where the sensor is good. Find something redeeming about it so there is a balance of good and bad. This camera gets raked through the coals yet it is selling well. So obviously it isn't a crap camera.

The sample image that was taken showing the "bad" dynamic range was pulled and overdone on purpose to jack up the noise. I took that RAW file and edited it with the intent of saving the details, and my edit wasn't nearly as noisy and retained details rather well. People looked at that one edited photo and assumed that camera was crap because of that. I don't buy it for one second. Yes, the DR is lower, but anyone who processes the images correctly without trying to overcook the image in post can make those images shine.

Scorehound_ca: if you have the time, please email to let me know which parts of the 18-page review are not being included in our current reviews. We've tried to make sure that we have included all the key assessments and tests that matter, we just try to present them in a less long-winded way. This is not the same thing as rushing, but I would welcome your feedback.

However, although it is possible to process the wedding shot with more noise reduction (at the cost of detail), the point is that it's significantly noisier than its contemporaries would produce if shot in the same manner (as supported by both our studio tests and Bill Claff's analysis). The image wasn't shot or processed to specifically jack up the noise, but neither was it done to try to mask the differences between this and other cameras. Yes it can be made more usable, but on other cameras there wouldn't be the same need for noise reduction or the worry about how well detail might survive the process.

So... if I understand correctly what dpreview has said: Canon did not come up with the new latest technology. Neither did they apply the best technology that they had previously. They mix and match so and so functionalities, and position the product in such a sly way in order to make most profits from customers. So, if you are stupid enough (and we know you are), what caused you to purchase it?

Not everyone bases their purchasing decisions on the opinions of review websites. They look at what they need and they buy. There are a million opinions for practically every product. You will give yourself a headache trying to base your purchasing decisions on what you find online. 90% of the people who buy this camera aren't using DPReview as a buying guide. For what the 6D2 offers, it will be more than sufficient for most people, save for people who demand the ultimate in quality sparing no expense. These people will spend whatever it takes to get the best, and as we all know, if you want the best you have to pay for it.

About "shoot the same scene from the same position and at the same f-number and you'll get shallower depth of field." on the 2nd page: I don't think this tells the full story.

If you would use the same lens with the same exposure from the same distance, the images would be exactly the same, except that the smaller sensor will crop the image. If you'd crop the full-frame (FF) image in post-processing, you'd get the same result as the "in-camera" crop of APS-C.

There would be a difference if you would "compensate" for the crop with a longer lens on the FF camera. So if you would use a 50/1.8 (field of view (FoV) equivalent to 80mm on FF) lens on the crop camera and a 85/1.8 on the FF camera from the same distance, they would more or less have the "same" image but with different compression and DoF.

Or another way of putting it: with the same lens, on FF you can get closer to the subject and have the same FoV, with consequently closer focusing and less DoF.

"shoot with the same framing, from the same position and at the same f-number and you'll get shallower depth of field."

That way it implies the use of equivalent lenses (and should also state viewing the images at the same size, rather than inexplicably viewing them in proportion to the sensor size they were shot on). and compensating for sensor size.

So yes, a 50mm F1.8 on the 80D and an 80mm F2.8 on the 6D II would have the same angle of view, the same depth of field and the same compression (since this is defined by the position you're shooting from, not the focal length).

It's true that if you put down your 6D II, swap the lens across to the 80D and shoot the same scene, you'll effectively get a cropped version of the picture you shot with the full frame camera. Sadly, however, you've missed a substantial area off the edges of your photo (or included a lot of superfluous nonsense around the full frame version), which is an odd way to shoot.

The crop and the APS-C image will actually have shallower depth of field than the full frame image, if you view all three at the same size but, as I say, the full frame image will be a different enough photograph that the depth of field differences are the least of your problems.

As I say, stick an 80mm F2.8 on the full frame camera, shoot the scene again and you'll get a near-identical image to the one you just took with the 50mm F1.8 on the 80D. Essentially* the same angle of view, same depth of field, same amount of diffraction, same compression and, if you used the same shutter speed, broadly the same noise.

*The main reason I couch the statement with 'essentially' is because the maths would require an 80mm F2.88, rather than 2.8. More difference will stem from that rounding error than from most other sources.

Ah, you refer to the circle of confusion? Because all other variables are fixed.

I have never checked it thoroughly, but I have the impression that the purpose is to "correct" for the viewing "quality" (resolution/distance/etc.).

In the end, if we forget the sensor, we have the same lens, same focusing distance, same distance to the plane where to project the image, with the only difference is that in the smaller camera a part of this projection is not considered. So physics-wise, I don't see why the DoF should be different.

Then again, the that idea of the circle of confusion does not take into account that we'd like to crop and then compare. And if we have the exact same sensor, only one is larger, then also the viewing quality after cropping should be the same. In short, I don't think there should be a difference in DoF after cropping.

Maybe nice to empirically verify? You guys at DPR probably have 2 cameras with different sensor sizes but same pixel size? And a lens that fits?

The DoF is only different between the full image and the crop if you blow the crop up to the same output size (but, as I say, they'll be significantly different images, so I'm not sure what the real world usefulness of this example is). Obviously if you don't blow the crop up, the depth-of-field will be the same: it wouldn't be modified simply by cutting the edges off the larger print.

Why doesn't anyone talk about the "sweet spot" advantage of using full frame lenses on APS-C anymore? I miss that phrase and it used to be a very dominant meme here before everyone started arguing about depth of field and whatever.

It was in the mid 2000s, when nikon only had two APS-C sized constant-aperture zooms (the 12-24 f4 and the 17-55 f2.8) and I think Canon only had one (a 17-55 f2.8). Everything else was kit lenses of varying quality.

But writers back then tried to put a positive spin on it and treat the use of full frame lenses on APS-C cams as a good thing and they all used the term "sweet spot." It was like their mantra. The lack of constant aperture APS-C zooms continues but I guess writers got sick of accentuating the positive and prefer to get everyone all riled up over sensor size vs. DOF, angle of view, and other issues that were conclusively settled several decades ago.

"I guess writers got sick of accentuating the positive and prefer to get everyone all riled up over sensor size vs. DOF, angle of view, and other issues that were conclusively settled several decades ago."

I think you might have got cause and effect the wrong way around. We wrote an article about equivalence in part because we kept seeing arguments about it (my own guess would be that the lowered price of full frame meant that more people were trying to choose between formats, which is where equivalence is useful).

We tried to state the facts and illustrate the degree to which real life and sensor differences meant the idea held true but we certainly didn't sit here thinking 'what will upset people.'

I used to do a little writing for the gen public myself and I half believe you. But you will confess that a little piece of your soul dies every time you have to write the same canned phrase yet again. And I'm sure that you guys don't intend to upset people but at times it sounds like DPR editors are suffering from seasonal affective disorder. For instance, compare the wonderful, insightful, subtly reasoned article above, written by you, to some of the on-edge writing you did about equivalence. Two different people. Perhaps equivalence causes so much outrage and confusion because of the manner in which it was introduced. The concept was written about as if it were something completely new and groundbreaking despite the fact there have been illustrations in photo manuals of angle of view/depth of field/film size for decades. Same goes for the tradeoff in relative noise vs. image size; actual lens equivalence charts go back at least to the introduction of the Pen-F in 1963.

I'm amazed at how so many people have difficulty grasping the incredibly simple math involved in format comparison; focal length, dof, iso, and framing equavalency! There is a great articlle on this written by Thom Hogan, just google " The Full Frame Debate" Thom Hogan, and he explains it perfectly.

"Why doesn't anyone talk about the "sweet spot" advantage of using full frame lenses on APS-C anymore?"

If you are talking about sharpness this "sweet spot" advantage usually doesn't translate to actual photos. Even though APS-C is using sharper part of the lens that is offset by the fact that it needs a sharper lens just to break even with FF resolution wise. Net result is that most FF lenses give sharper results on a FF than on an APS-C camera, and this remains true even if you are comparing FF and APS-C sensors with the same resolution.

This is great info about sharpness. So what you're saying is that if Nikon and Canon would get their act together and produce some great APS-C lenses beyond the few old ones in their lineup, we wouldn't have to lug around these full frame monstrosities anymore.

They could make better lenses, but they may be so expensive, you may not be able to afford them. Smaller lenses with the same resolution as larger ones require higher precision manufacturing, which increases cost.

Bummer. But even the Otuses or best of the Sigmas? Of course putting a $4000 lens on an $600 camera would be ridiculous, but very cool at the same time—you're saying to the world “you loser, you think you take great pictures with your 1D-X? Check out what I can do with my 60D.”

The sad thing is that the 6DII's performance necessitates that we have this discussion. The even sadder thing is that there are people who keeps blindly defending everything about canon products and thanks to that canon can keep screwing over customers with their greedy market segmentation strategy.

This can be said of any brand, as every brand has is shortcomings and people defending a specific brand tend to ignore that.

As for segmentation, i dont see many difference with nikon: canon has 5 segment with multiple offers in some segment, nikon has 6 segment, with multiple offers in some segment. The main difference, to me, being canon offering a pro model in the apsc format where nikon doesnt. But i wonder if isnt all a labeling thing, with different marketing strategies and nothing more.

The difference is as of now contemporary Nikon lower end full frame has some performance advantages over their higher end counterpart, take for example: The D750 has a 0.2 less DR than the D810 at base ISO but up to half a stop more DR at ISO 100 onward, it also has visibly less noise at higher ISO than the D810 and shoots faster.

The 6DII on the other hand has zero performance advantage over the 5DIV.

"The 6DII on the other hand has zero performance advantage over the 5DIV."

Hence the reason why the 5DIV is $2000 more. The 5DIV doesn't have a vari-angle screen, the 6D2 is smaller, lighter and rated for more shots. Plus I do believe the 6D2 has Bluetooth while the 5DIV doesn't. Not big things, but it isn't at a total disadvantage given the price point.

And the D810's advantage is ISO 64, 50% more pixel and better build. It's DR gets outperformed by the D750 from ISO 100 onward, the D750 also has much less noise at higher ISO, focuses much better in the dark, shoots 1.5 fps faster, very significant advantages over the D810, so the D810 is hardly "a beast of a camera compared to the D750", they're actually very comparable when it comes to performance alone. When it comes to niceties, the D750 has tilty screen, wifi, much lighter and more compact.

In Canada it is. The 6D2 is $2600, and the 5DIV is $4600 when not on sale.

As for the D810, it's 36MP sensor and Base 64 ISO make it a beast. And it contains features such as the split screen that make it more intuitive for landscape shooters. If I could afford it I'd sell my D750 for the D810 any day of the week for resolution alone, and I don't think the D810 is as unreliable as the D750 is, considering the recalls.

I see, Mr. Mordor. Even though the D500 is "pro" in every way, because Nikon doesn't market it as such, you don't consider it as such... even though it matches or beats the 7 DII in every respect. So... you give credence to brand marketers rather than a camera's build and performance. Good to know.

Yeah poor observation on the reviewer's part. My old saying to my customers is sometimes is never always. It can go either way much like this comparison. I tend to shoot with both. .RAW for getting the most out of my image when I need too, or want too. Some need the .JPG for right now sharing etc. You could shoot both at the same time on most DSLRs these days, so choice is there. No right or wrong here. Just what YOU want to do. So News Flash! You are all right. Everybody being right, that won't go well with the argumentative of those here. Okay, I'm good with that.

The comparison makes it pretty clear that shooting jpeg means missing out on the potential of the sensor. Don't get it either why one would limit the potential, other than for special occasions such as "real time" reporting from a sports event.I think you are overdoing it with the smartphone cam comment though ;-)@tkbslc you sound as openminded as the smartphone comment ...

@ChickenBalls:So, to you the main differentiating factor betw. a smartphone and (any?) DSLR is the RAW-mode on the DSLR? Note for you: some smartphones DO allow for use of shooting in RAW, if not that many...

I´d think there are many, many differences, among which RAW isn´t even the "top one", between a DSLR and any smartphone out there!!

I have a number of friends who do not want to spend time post-processing photos. Today's in-camera JPEG engines are quite good. Yes, there are some shots that get sub-optimized, nor would they be ready to print at 14 inches. But they are really happy with the OOC JPEGs for memories, sharing photos with family on Facebook, and printing (usually max 5x8in)

And yes, smartphones are good, but they do not have the same capabilities in low light, nor with fast-moving kids and grandchildren. So they have found the tradeoffs/mix that suits them. With about the same amount of free time, one of my friends who PPs all photos has a great gallery of prints in his house... while another built a bar in his basement (he just uses OOC JPEGs). To each his own!

any update on view finder auto focusing performance with 80d. It was very bad in dpr review with auto mode when all points are active during servo focusing. How about small or larger zone focusing modes. Except for Canon crippling, 77d seems to be an improvement over 80d in terms of live view and view finder focusing with new processor. It also slightly sharper than 80d in studio comparison along with size and weight savings as a bonus.

@Jeff Peterman:Read the 6D mk2 reviews, there are a few out there. Then determine if the improvements are worth the cost, and if they are things that would benefit YOUR "photography style". Simple as that.

Unfortunately, none of these responses helps. Yes, the MKII has a relative limited spread of good focus points, but the I only use the center one original so the limited spread is still a big improvement. Low ISO DR is not critical to me, but high ISO is and I haven't seen good comparisons of real-world use of the 6D and 6D II in low light. The improvements in AF spots could be enough to justify the upgrade - if the high ISO is at least as good as on the original.

Didn't DPreview already address the case of existing 6D users in their 6DmkII review? I thought I remembered them devoting a fair number of words to the improvements over the outgoing model and who would find it worth it to upgrade.

The high ISO performance of the 6D2 is very good. If you aren't obsessed with DR the vari-angle touch screen and advanced AF over the 6D mkI makes a worthy upgrade. Only people who need a lot of processing room for image corrections in post should consider whether the upgrade is worth it. If you want to have fun with your photography and have a body that will do more for you and be easier to shoot with, the 6D2 is a worthy upgrade.

Upgrade? Why stick to one - get both. If you have a camera body, it's not like you made a marital vow of loyalty. The 6dmii for wide angle, dof and high iso; the 80d for the 1.6x reach on your tele lenses, video and ironically DR at base ISO.

No, not for nothing. I take every image into post, and that's where I crop. What part I crop is not defined by anything but what I like in the image and how I want to present it. I'm not worried about aligning the subject when it's shot, because I do that in post. So I aim for the middle, where the glass is best, focus right on the critical target, and then crop to thirds or against an eye-leading line, etc. in post. That may involve cropping towards any corner. In the process, I adjust the shadows, the highlights, etc. The result is very good - if I got the subject the way I wanted it. Good lenses are a must for this kind of approach. To be honest, I'm just not good / fast enough to compose on the fly; but I can do it in post. The 6D is high enough resolution to pull this off almost every time. The 6DmkII is even better. But in both cases, the L glass means I have more, better, finer, subject matter to work with. It's totally worth it.

That's not entirely true, as Canon has been making its new lenses turn in good performances with 50MP FF cameras for a few years now, which are just APS pixel density sensors with more sensor area. Also most of the better lenses were good on crop bodies anyway. I remember when I upgraded my crop body from the 17-85 to 24-105, the improvement in IQ was amazing.

I own a 5D III and just bought the 80D. To say that I love the 80D would be an understatement. The auto focus, both for video and stills, is superb along with the flip out LCD, picture quality, relatively good low light performance for a crop sensor, and manual controls. The 80D also has a headphone jack which allows you to monitor the direct sound the camera is recording and that is not found on the 6D II. Unless you need full frame for your lenses or the extra low light capability, the 6D II is NOT and upgrade to the 80D.

The 6D2 isn't an upgrade to the 80D because the 80D is an APS-C camera and the 6D2 is a Full Frame camera. The upgrade to the 80D will be the 90D. :-) However, some people who love the 80D might buy the 6D2 because of their similarities.

That being said, FF is considered an upgrade over APS-C, so going from APS-C to FF is upgrading, regardless of feature differences or performance.

I agree on wat mmcfine states. Just like written in the article, it is what YOU sute best. I can imagine a landscape shooter choosing a 1 inch sensor over a ff sensor. And a wildlifeshooter choosing an apc sensor or mft sensor for its cropsizes (longer telephoto reach). If YOU do not need to shoot at higher iso settings nor need the better dof delivered by a ff sensor, than why is a ff sensor considered an upgrade?

More about gear in this article

Both Nikon Japan and Canon Japan have warned users that forthcoming DSLRs will be delayed. The 100th anniversary edition of Nikon’s D5 has been put back by a couple of weeks, and Canon's 6D Mark II/EF 24-70mm F4L kit in Japan is also delayed.

A close look at the EOS 6D II's Raw files suggest its dynamic range has taken a significant step backwards compared with the company's recent DSLRs. We look at how much difference this might make for your photos.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.